Maybe off topic, but Ive always found strange people who comment on Google's monopoly by focusing on chrome. It seems obvious to me that the key to their dominance is that they both have control over how traffic is distributed to websites, and how those websites get paid for the traffic they get. Chrome and android are just nice to haves, but Google would still be a monopoly without them.
I think if you wanna break up Google it would be a lot more effective to separate search from AdSense, rather than chrome.
empath75 · 3h ago
Also Chrome is basically useless as a money-making product without the google integrations. There's no way to monetize it without search and ad integrations.
acchow · 3h ago
Apple gets paid $20 billion per year to set Google as the default search engine in Safari...
azemetre · 2h ago
Yeah and if you’re going by market share that easily puts Chrome in the $100billion range.
Obviously there are massive profits to be made from private browsers.
owebmaster · 2h ago
50million chromeOS new devices are sold and added to its userbase. Chrome as a company could be huge and compete against Windows, Mac, iOS and Android.
charcircuit · 3h ago
So does x, so does youtube, so does tiktok, so does instagram. It's not unique for an app to control both discovery and monetization of content within it.
spacebanana7 · 3h ago
IP laws will never be enforced on LLMs because they cannot be enforced on Chinese open source LLMs.
Western governments would rather publishers lose some property rights than tolerate a world where their industries become dependent on Chinese LLMs. Although to be clear, they probably don’t enjoy either option.
rvnx · 3h ago
Elevator Operators (people who were driving elevators up and down) also got their job "stolen" by AI.
Was it the responsibility of the people who created automated, cheaper and better elevators to defend the job of these obsolete people ?
Not really.
MailleQuiMaille · 3h ago
What a weird analogy.
The content and services provided by AI still needs those humans behind. Maybe when it’s all AI agents talking to themselves, this would make sense, but before that, someone has to write, edit and choose that content.
How can you say publishers are obsolete ?
freetanga · 3h ago
The big question is whether Google followed the content licensing, and if needed, paid for it.
rvnx · 3h ago
I'm sure they did not, but the rich guys win, even if they do something truly illegal.
If they would have respected the laws, OpenAI would not have been able to create AI models at all (as they are derivatives of copyrighted works).
So it's pure piracy of content at scale. The same with Veo3.
Is it beneficial to humanity ? Probably yes.
Is it harmful to content creators ? Absolutely but in the long-term, they have little chances to survive, no matter if legal or not, because this is both what the market and consumers want.
For example, these people on Fiverr selling blog posts, it was minimum 200 USD per blog post, and few days of turnaround.
Now with AI it's 0.01 USD and instant.
birken · 2h ago
It is difficult to say this is what consumers want, when right now consumers are getting the best of both worlds: The ease of AI agents without the long-term negative consequences of destroying the publishers who created all the high quality training data in the first place.
I think in the long term the highest quality content creators are going to find ways to keep their information out of AI training data, and put it behind walled gardens.
mistrial9 · 6m ago
are you the same guy that gives free coffee to the crooked county sheriffs on their way to take most of a year's harvest on the basis of fake laws?
Gud · 2h ago
They could have stuck to works that are in public domain.
vjvjvjvjghv · 3h ago
Then let's get rid of all IP. I am sure Google is happy ripping other people's contents but they will vigorously defend their own IP. I also wouldn't call content creators "obsolete". AI would have nothing to train on without them.
Tl;dr* He claims ads were the original sin of the web, built for a human internet. For the coming agentic web where most browsing would be done by agents, he proposes a new protocol that has payments integrated into it. Specifically agents paying for accessing content using micropayments with stablecoins.
Also interesting to note that this is one of the most submitted articles of Stratechery to HN but gained no traction. Latest submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44073241
It's definitely not fair, but publishers were already driving away users with screens full of ads, newsletter pop ups, "affiliate" links, and padded-out content (so people scroll more and see more ads). Users aren't going to shed any tears for them.
wapeoifjaweofji · 2h ago
The AI results are also going to be filled with that kind of trash if they aren't already.
tippytippytango · 3h ago
There will have to be a new IP framework to make sure people are properly incentivized to produce content in an AI first world.
armchairhacker · 2h ago
If it’s easy enough to produce creative “content” thanks to AI, and people have enough money and free time, they’ll create without being paid (for themselves, social status, social influence, scientific advancement, etc.)
In the meantime, I think people should focus on attribution, and algorithms to find related work (which may suitably substitute for the former). This will allow us to fund creators and publishers for AI output, maybe by forcing the AI companies, or naturally through patronage (see AI output you like, find who owns the training data that contributed to it, donate to them). Moreover, it will help people discover more interesting things and creators.
zb3 · 3h ago
The "traffic" did not incentivize "publishers" (as they call themselves) to produce any valuable content.. instead, it incentivized them to produce SEO garbage that's not helpful and often deceptive.
kixiQu · 3h ago
I think it's worth being thoughtful about the whole range of folks doing a whole range of stuff out on the Internet. I like this piece about the various incentives that exist:
https://vbuckenham.com/blog/how-to-find-things-online/
zb3 · 2h ago
I don't know how your comment addresses my comment and the article you mentioned is long. But since you replied, you know what you meant, so could you share your particular argument?
jmathai · 3h ago
Is there much material difference to publishers to opt out of AI Mode given how much of the distribution Google controls?
I understand it prevents publishers' works from being "stolen" but leaves them without a major distribution source.
zb3 · 3h ago
Very good. Google created this SEO garbage so now they can (and should) put an end to it.
ivape · 4h ago
The LLM should know when it regurgitates content from a specific site and page, that should be the new “pageview”. Me telling the LLM that I don’t want the first answer it gave me from a common site is the same as me going deep into Google search result page 10 (like the old days).
jxjnskkzxxhx · 3h ago
> LLM should know when it regurgitates content from a specific site and page
I dont think that's how LLMs work.
enjoylife · 3h ago
Maybe some reverse attribution to determine how much credit to give different sources in the old top k results. Maybe a llm that is trained on fact finding, and giving proper % of credit. But this would probably require a collective contract in place to benefit site owners, which means its never going to happen.
Cyclone_ · 2h ago
That's what Google does now for some of its AI search results. There's a link icon next to some of the answers.
jxjnskkzxxhx · 1h ago
No, you have it backwards. What google does is have it's ai read the URLs that search found, summarize them, and tag the URL.
ivape · 38m ago
You don’t think it can run one more iteration on its own output to provide attribution? They could even create a synthetic page view for the sources with an exclusive bot and not change anything about how things are done (the bot is told to visit the site registering a page view).
constantcrying · 3h ago
IP is such a stupid concept. Both humans and AI use material to improve themselves and that material is often heavily gatekept (Try getting access to a "regular" scientific paper) and should be freely accessible to anyone. No matter who.
impossiblefork · 2h ago
I think the right way to understand it is as a kind of theft of service.
Somebody does something which takes some work. There's nothing special about his work other than that it is available-- there's so many stories you can tell, there's so many ways to express an idea, that to, if the author hadn't created a particular work, making it illegal to create that particular work, people wouldn't have lost anything. It would be a trivial restriction.
Thus when someone takes a particular work and does something with it, he chooses to not develop one of the other similar works he himself could have created, and takes advantage of somebody else's effort.
Frost1x · 2h ago
I somewhat agree with you. At the same time, the effort involved in creating valuable IP can vary drastically from something I throw together on my phone like a paragraph of writing to a full movie production or huge investment in drug design for helping people live longer.
Because of the variance in production cost and ROI for effort, vs the general ability to copy IP (just the IP, which could be loads of research that isn’t valuable without loads of capital and decades of investment into certain infrastructure e.g. TSMC), there have to be some sort of incentives to do the hard groundwork that creates valuable IP that once discovered is trivial to copy or implement, otherwise people simply won’t do it, they’ll just copy and resell and then fewer people will do the initial leg work until we’re left chasing the bottom of the barrel of the level of effort someone may invest in something they have no means of capturing return from that work and risk. And not everything can be hidden behind a web service, some IP is far more challenging to protect.
So, while I tend to agree that the current implementation of IP protections is trash, I think we do need something there to encourage such work. In research we have(/had?) federal tax investment into doing such work and as a trade off, researchers get fed and live a semi comfortable or sometime decent quality of life for their efforts. I don’t have the answers to the ideal model, I know what we have isn’t great and can be improved upon in some ways, but I don’t know wha the best(TM) solution is here. I know it’s not pure unrestricted markets doing whatever they want, though.
robertlagrant · 2h ago
> IP is such a stupid concept. Both humans and AI use material to improve themselves and that material is often heavily gatekept (Try getting access to a "regular" scientific paper) and should be freely accessible to anyone. No matter who.
It's not a stupid concept. It exists because someone put effort in. Should we steal their effort?
bodiekane · 1h ago
I put in effort to brush my teeth every day. Everyone who sees my smile is stealing that effort and should be required to pay me.
robertlagrant · 1h ago
This is a pretty broken analogy. You brush your teeth to look after them. People who see your smile don't reverse any of that cleaning effect.
jiggawatts · 1h ago
With scientific research especially the gate keeping is insanely counter-productive.
Imagine if Wikipedia had a paywall for each article… but you had to pay to a different organisation for each vaguely related set of pages. Some requiring recurring subscriptions and minimum spend so you can’t cancel.
Worse, the people demanding the payment aren’t even the operators of Wikipedia and they charge the article editors for the privilege of publishing on their platform!
You can have government funded research at a government funded university and then both the researcher and the students at that same university have to pay to have the research published and accessed!
But not too many pictures please and they can’t have color, that’s expensive, you see?
Raw data hosting? No way! Do that yourself.
Versioning, backlinks, ongoing feedback, comments, etc… don’t even ask! Do you think this is the future!?
Meanwhile the largest collaboration of human minds on the planet takes place on GitHub and is almost entirely volunteers working for free and giving away their work for free for everyone to fork and build on. And comment, contribute, and extend.
Science as it is today is a tyre fire and it is almost entirely the fault of rent seeking middlemen with misaligned incentives.
Quinner · 3h ago
I tend to agree with you, but without a structure to incentivize people to produce such material, less of it will be created. If people can't pay the bills by doing research or writing, far fewer people will do it.
puppycodes · 3h ago
harm to the publishing industry is the worlds tiniest violin and biggest eyeroll. google is evil in much bigger ways than this.
Fix the insanity that is intellectual property and get back to us.
josefritzishere · 3h ago
Google is really making a good case that they're abusing their monopoly positino and need trust busting.
dieortin · 3h ago
Is there a difference from what Google is doing here and what other players (OpenAI, Perplexity, Phind…) are doing?
Unroasted6154 · 3h ago
Google will give them more money if they win the lawsuit.
I think if you wanna break up Google it would be a lot more effective to separate search from AdSense, rather than chrome.
Obviously there are massive profits to be made from private browsers.
Western governments would rather publishers lose some property rights than tolerate a world where their industries become dependent on Chinese LLMs. Although to be clear, they probably don’t enjoy either option.
Was it the responsibility of the people who created automated, cheaper and better elevators to defend the job of these obsolete people ?
Not really.
The content and services provided by AI still needs those humans behind. Maybe when it’s all AI agents talking to themselves, this would make sense, but before that, someone has to write, edit and choose that content.
How can you say publishers are obsolete ?
If they would have respected the laws, OpenAI would not have been able to create AI models at all (as they are derivatives of copyrighted works).
So it's pure piracy of content at scale. The same with Veo3.
Is it beneficial to humanity ? Probably yes.
Is it harmful to content creators ? Absolutely but in the long-term, they have little chances to survive, no matter if legal or not, because this is both what the market and consumers want.
For example, these people on Fiverr selling blog posts, it was minimum 200 USD per blog post, and few days of turnaround.
Now with AI it's 0.01 USD and instant.
I think in the long term the highest quality content creators are going to find ways to keep their information out of AI training data, and put it behind walled gardens.
Tl;dr* He claims ads were the original sin of the web, built for a human internet. For the coming agentic web where most browsing would be done by agents, he proposes a new protocol that has payments integrated into it. Specifically agents paying for accessing content using micropayments with stablecoins.
Also interesting to note that this is one of the most submitted articles of Stratechery to HN but gained no traction. Latest submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44073241
* A summary can also be found here: https://stratechery.com/2025/the-upheaval-coming-for-the-int...
In the meantime, I think people should focus on attribution, and algorithms to find related work (which may suitably substitute for the former). This will allow us to fund creators and publishers for AI output, maybe by forcing the AI companies, or naturally through patronage (see AI output you like, find who owns the training data that contributed to it, donate to them). Moreover, it will help people discover more interesting things and creators.
I understand it prevents publishers' works from being "stolen" but leaves them without a major distribution source.
I dont think that's how LLMs work.
Somebody does something which takes some work. There's nothing special about his work other than that it is available-- there's so many stories you can tell, there's so many ways to express an idea, that to, if the author hadn't created a particular work, making it illegal to create that particular work, people wouldn't have lost anything. It would be a trivial restriction.
Thus when someone takes a particular work and does something with it, he chooses to not develop one of the other similar works he himself could have created, and takes advantage of somebody else's effort.
Because of the variance in production cost and ROI for effort, vs the general ability to copy IP (just the IP, which could be loads of research that isn’t valuable without loads of capital and decades of investment into certain infrastructure e.g. TSMC), there have to be some sort of incentives to do the hard groundwork that creates valuable IP that once discovered is trivial to copy or implement, otherwise people simply won’t do it, they’ll just copy and resell and then fewer people will do the initial leg work until we’re left chasing the bottom of the barrel of the level of effort someone may invest in something they have no means of capturing return from that work and risk. And not everything can be hidden behind a web service, some IP is far more challenging to protect.
So, while I tend to agree that the current implementation of IP protections is trash, I think we do need something there to encourage such work. In research we have(/had?) federal tax investment into doing such work and as a trade off, researchers get fed and live a semi comfortable or sometime decent quality of life for their efforts. I don’t have the answers to the ideal model, I know what we have isn’t great and can be improved upon in some ways, but I don’t know wha the best(TM) solution is here. I know it’s not pure unrestricted markets doing whatever they want, though.
It's not a stupid concept. It exists because someone put effort in. Should we steal their effort?
Imagine if Wikipedia had a paywall for each article… but you had to pay to a different organisation for each vaguely related set of pages. Some requiring recurring subscriptions and minimum spend so you can’t cancel.
Worse, the people demanding the payment aren’t even the operators of Wikipedia and they charge the article editors for the privilege of publishing on their platform!
You can have government funded research at a government funded university and then both the researcher and the students at that same university have to pay to have the research published and accessed!
But not too many pictures please and they can’t have color, that’s expensive, you see?
Raw data hosting? No way! Do that yourself.
Versioning, backlinks, ongoing feedback, comments, etc… don’t even ask! Do you think this is the future!?
Meanwhile the largest collaboration of human minds on the planet takes place on GitHub and is almost entirely volunteers working for free and giving away their work for free for everyone to fork and build on. And comment, contribute, and extend.
Science as it is today is a tyre fire and it is almost entirely the fault of rent seeking middlemen with misaligned incentives.
Fix the insanity that is intellectual property and get back to us.